Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Arizona Trump Sharpie Lawsuit
Arizona Trump Sharpie Lawsuit
November 7, 2020
After dismissing Arizona Public Interest Ballot Cure, the Trump campaign filed an identical lawsuit. This challenge is based on social media allegations that claim voters’ ballots did not count if they used a Sharpie, despite county officials strongly denying this claim.
https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/arizona-trump-sharpie-lawsuit/
GOP complaint
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/CV2020-014248-Complaint.pdf
GOP intervenors complaint
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Intervenor-Complaint.pdf
Motion to intervene
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Trump-v.-Hobbs-Motion-to-Intervene_CV2020-014248.pdf
This lawsuit is a repackaged version of a lawsuit filed and then quickly dismissed in
this Court last week, Aguilera v. Fontes, Case No. 2020-014083, which perpetuated a nowdebunked conspiracy theory known online as “SharpieGate.” While the parties and claims
may slightly differ, the bottom line is the same: both sets of plaintiffs seek to create
confusion and undermine confidence in the validity of the 2020 general election. This
remedy, if granted, would throw the processing of ballots into disarray well past the
eleventh hour, when nearly all the ballots have been processed and counted. The Arizona
Democratic Party (“ADP”) seeks to intervene as a defendant in this matter so that it may
prevent this intrusion on the vote tabulation process and protect the rights of its members
and affiliated candidates in Maricopa County. The Honorable Margaret Mahoney granted
the Arizona Democratic Party’s (“ADP”) request for intervention in Aguilera, and the
same results should follow here.
ADP meets the applicable requirements for intervention under Rule 24 of the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. ADP is dedicated to supporting the election of
Democratic candidates across Arizona and has a keen interest in the outcome of this
litigation. An unknown but not insignificant number of ADP-affiliated voters could risk
not having their votes counted if Plaintiffs are able to cease the canvass in pursuit of their
partisan ends. Further, the current Defendants do not adequately represent ADP’s interests
in this litigation; ADP’s interests may diverge from the interests of the government
defendants who are representatives of the Maricopa County and State governments, rather
than active participants in the election contests on the ballot. ADP should be permitted to
intervene as of right, or, in the alternative should be granted permissive intervention. As
required by Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c), this Motion is accompanied by a
Proposed Answer, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and a proposed form of order,
filed concurrently with this motion.
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendants contacted the counsel for both County and State
Defendants and was advised that they take no position on ADP’s intervention. Plaintiffs’
counsel had not yet responded to ADP’s messages by the time of filing.
ARGUMENT
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 24 allows for both intervention as of right and
permissive intervention, and is a “remedial” rule that should be “liberally construed with
the view of assisting parties in obtaining justice and protecting their rights.” Bechtel v.
Rose In & For Maricopa Cty., 722 P.2d 236, 240 (Ariz. 1986) (citation omitted).
A. ADP is entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a).
ADP is entitled to intervene as of right in this case. The Court must allow
intervention in any case where a party “claims an interest relating to the subject of the
action” and “disposing of the action in the person’s absence may as a practical matter
impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Rule 24 is a remedial rule
that “should be construed liberally in order to assist parties seeking to obtain justice in
protecting their rights.” Dowling v. Stapley, 221 Ariz. 251, 270 ¶58 (App. 2009). Four
elements are necessary for a successful motion to intervene under Rule 24(a): “(1) the
motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must assert an interest relating to the property or
transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must show that disposition
of the action may impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant
must show that the other parties would not adequately represent its interests.” Woodbridge
Structured Funding, LLC v. Ariz. Lottery, 235 Ariz. 25, 28 ¶13 (App. 2014).
Here, all four requirements demonstrate the need for intervention. First, the motion
is timely. Plaintiffs filed their complaint over the weekend, and ADP files this motion
before the Court has heard argument or made any substantive rulings. Timeliness under
Rule 24 is “flexible” and the most important consideration “is whether the delay in moving
for intervention will prejudice the existing parties to the case.” Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.
(U.S.A.), 162 Ariz. 442, 446 (App. 1989). Given that all issues remain live before the
Court, no party will be prejudiced by ADP’s intervention, and the Court should therefore
consider the motion timely.
Second and third, ADP clearly has important rights at stake that would be impaired
if the Court were to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief. Given that this matter concerns how
ballots cast in a critically important election are tabulated, it plainly affects the
fundamental voting rights of ADP and its members and constituents. See State v. Key, 128
Ariz. 419, 421 (App. 1981) (noting the right to vote as “fundamental”). As a critical
participant in the electoral process, ADP has interests in preserving a predictable, fair and
equitable electoral environment. These interests are readily sufficient to merit intervention.
Fourth, ADP’s interests would not be adequately represented by the Defendants
named in this lawsuit. ADP’s particular interest in this case—protecting itself and
its members and constituents from disenfranchisement—is not shared by the County or
State Defendants, whose stake in this lawsuit is defined solely by its statutory duties to
conduct elections. ADP’s interest is in winning the general election by ensuring that as
many of their affiliated voters can vote as possible. Because these interests are
meaningfully different than those of election administrators, political actors have routinely
been permitted to intervene in actions where election officials are named as defendants.
See, e.g., Aguilera v. Fontes, No. CV2020-014083 (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct. Nov. 5,
2020); Maricopa County Republican Party et al. v. Reagan et al., No. CV2018-013963
(Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2018) (granting intervention to political parties and
other interested political actors in election dispute); Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs, No. 20-cv01093 (D. Ariz. Oct. 2, 2020) (granting intervention to political party in election dispute);
see also Issa v. Newsom, No. 2:20-cv-01044-MCE-CKD, 2020 WL 3074351, at *4 (E.D.
Cal. June 10, 2020) (“While [government] Defendants’ arguments turn on their inherent
authority as state executives and their responsibility to properly administer election laws,
Proposed [political party] Intervenors are concerned with ensuring their party members
and the voters they represent have the opportunity to vote in the upcoming federal election,
advancing their overall electoral prospects, and allocating their limited resources to inform
voters about the election procedures.”).
B. In the alternative, ADP should be granted permissive intervention.
In the alternative, ADP should be permitted to intervene as a party who “has a claim
or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law and fact.” Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 24(b)(1). When this standard is met, Arizona courts may consider other factors to
guide its decision as to whether to grant permissive intervention, including: (1) “the nature
and extent of the intervenors’ interest,” (2) “their standing to raise relevant legal issues,”
(3) “the legal position they seek to advance, and its probable relation to the merits of the
case,” (4) “whether the intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by other parties,”
(5) “whether intervention will prolong or unduly delay the litigation,” and (6) “whether
parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the
underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal
questions presented.” Bechtel, 722 P.2d at 240. As with Rule 24(a), Rule 24(b) should
similarly be liberally construed. Dowling, 221 Ariz. at 272 ¶ 67 (citing Bechtel v. Rose,
150 Ariz. 68, 72 (1986)). Ultimately, whether a party may intervene under Rule 24(b) is
left to the adjudicating court’s decision. See id. at ¶ 16 (concluding trial court did not abuse
its discretion in performing Rule 24(b) analysis).
Here, each factor weighs in favor of permitting ADP’s permissive intervention. Cf.
Ariz. Democratic Party v. Hobbs, No. 2:20-cv-01143-DLR, ECF No. 60 (D. Ariz. June 26,
2020) (granting permissive intervention to political party entities). First, ADP has a distinct
interest in the constitutional and lawful administration of this election without interference
from Plaintiffs during the processing of ballots. Second, ADP will oppose the issue at the
very heart of this case: whether the requested remedy will create confusion and undermine
the confidence in the validity of the 2020 general election. Third, ADP’s interest is distinct
from other parties, as only ADP can represent both its organizational interests and the
interests of individual voters, including ADP’s members and constituents, whose ballots
may be not counted as a result of Plaintiffs’ requested remedy. Fourth, ADP seeks
intervention promptly—on the first business day after the Complaint was filed—and thus
its intervention will not delay the proceedings. Lastly, ADP will contribute to full factual
development of this case, because it can present evidence regarding voters whose right to
vote and have their votes counted would be threatened as a result of Plaintiffs’ request to
cease tabulation. Because Rule 24 should be “liberally construed” to protect the rights of
all parties, id., the Court should permit intervention in this case.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, ADP requests that the Court grant its Motion to Intervene.
DATED: November 9, 2020
this Court last week, Aguilera v. Fontes, Case No. 2020-014083, which perpetuated a nowdebunked conspiracy theory known online as “SharpieGate.” While the parties and claims
may slightly differ, the bottom line is the same: both sets of plaintiffs seek to create
confusion and undermine confidence in the validity of the 2020 general election. This
remedy, if granted, would throw the processing of ballots into disarray well past the
eleventh hour, when nearly all the ballots have been processed and counted. The Arizona
Democratic Party (“ADP”) seeks to intervene as a defendant in this matter so that it may
prevent this intrusion on the vote tabulation process and protect the rights of its members
and affiliated candidates in Maricopa County. The Honorable Margaret Mahoney granted
the Arizona Democratic Party’s (“ADP”) request for intervention in Aguilera, and the
same results should follow here.
ADP meets the applicable requirements for intervention under Rule 24 of the
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. ADP is dedicated to supporting the election of
Democratic candidates across Arizona and has a keen interest in the outcome of this
litigation. An unknown but not insignificant number of ADP-affiliated voters could risk
not having their votes counted if Plaintiffs are able to cease the canvass in pursuit of their
partisan ends. Further, the current Defendants do not adequately represent ADP’s interests
in this litigation; ADP’s interests may diverge from the interests of the government
defendants who are representatives of the Maricopa County and State governments, rather
than active participants in the election contests on the ballot. ADP should be permitted to
intervene as of right, or, in the alternative should be granted permissive intervention. As
required by Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c), this Motion is accompanied by a
Proposed Answer, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and a proposed form of order,
filed concurrently with this motion.
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendants contacted the counsel for both County and State
Defendants and was advised that they take no position on ADP’s intervention. Plaintiffs’
counsel had not yet responded to ADP’s messages by the time of filing.
ARGUMENT
Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 24 allows for both intervention as of right and
permissive intervention, and is a “remedial” rule that should be “liberally construed with
the view of assisting parties in obtaining justice and protecting their rights.” Bechtel v.
Rose In & For Maricopa Cty., 722 P.2d 236, 240 (Ariz. 1986) (citation omitted).
A. ADP is entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a).
ADP is entitled to intervene as of right in this case. The Court must allow
intervention in any case where a party “claims an interest relating to the subject of the
action” and “disposing of the action in the person’s absence may as a practical matter
impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Rule 24 is a remedial rule
that “should be construed liberally in order to assist parties seeking to obtain justice in
protecting their rights.” Dowling v. Stapley, 221 Ariz. 251, 270 ¶58 (App. 2009). Four
elements are necessary for a successful motion to intervene under Rule 24(a): “(1) the
motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must assert an interest relating to the property or
transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must show that disposition
of the action may impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant
must show that the other parties would not adequately represent its interests.” Woodbridge
Structured Funding, LLC v. Ariz. Lottery, 235 Ariz. 25, 28 ¶13 (App. 2014).
Here, all four requirements demonstrate the need for intervention. First, the motion
is timely. Plaintiffs filed their complaint over the weekend, and ADP files this motion
before the Court has heard argument or made any substantive rulings. Timeliness under
Rule 24 is “flexible” and the most important consideration “is whether the delay in moving
for intervention will prejudice the existing parties to the case.” Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.
(U.S.A.), 162 Ariz. 442, 446 (App. 1989). Given that all issues remain live before the
Court, no party will be prejudiced by ADP’s intervention, and the Court should therefore
consider the motion timely.
Second and third, ADP clearly has important rights at stake that would be impaired
if the Court were to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief. Given that this matter concerns how
ballots cast in a critically important election are tabulated, it plainly affects the
fundamental voting rights of ADP and its members and constituents. See State v. Key, 128
Ariz. 419, 421 (App. 1981) (noting the right to vote as “fundamental”). As a critical
participant in the electoral process, ADP has interests in preserving a predictable, fair and
equitable electoral environment. These interests are readily sufficient to merit intervention.
Fourth, ADP’s interests would not be adequately represented by the Defendants
named in this lawsuit. ADP’s particular interest in this case—protecting itself and
its members and constituents from disenfranchisement—is not shared by the County or
State Defendants, whose stake in this lawsuit is defined solely by its statutory duties to
conduct elections. ADP’s interest is in winning the general election by ensuring that as
many of their affiliated voters can vote as possible. Because these interests are
meaningfully different than those of election administrators, political actors have routinely
been permitted to intervene in actions where election officials are named as defendants.
See, e.g., Aguilera v. Fontes, No. CV2020-014083 (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct. Nov. 5,
2020); Maricopa County Republican Party et al. v. Reagan et al., No. CV2018-013963
(Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2018) (granting intervention to political parties and
other interested political actors in election dispute); Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs, No. 20-cv01093 (D. Ariz. Oct. 2, 2020) (granting intervention to political party in election dispute);
see also Issa v. Newsom, No. 2:20-cv-01044-MCE-CKD, 2020 WL 3074351, at *4 (E.D.
Cal. June 10, 2020) (“While [government] Defendants’ arguments turn on their inherent
authority as state executives and their responsibility to properly administer election laws,
Proposed [political party] Intervenors are concerned with ensuring their party members
and the voters they represent have the opportunity to vote in the upcoming federal election,
advancing their overall electoral prospects, and allocating their limited resources to inform
voters about the election procedures.”).
B. In the alternative, ADP should be granted permissive intervention.
In the alternative, ADP should be permitted to intervene as a party who “has a claim
or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law and fact.” Ariz. R.
Civ. P. 24(b)(1). When this standard is met, Arizona courts may consider other factors to
guide its decision as to whether to grant permissive intervention, including: (1) “the nature
and extent of the intervenors’ interest,” (2) “their standing to raise relevant legal issues,”
(3) “the legal position they seek to advance, and its probable relation to the merits of the
case,” (4) “whether the intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by other parties,”
(5) “whether intervention will prolong or unduly delay the litigation,” and (6) “whether
parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the
underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal
questions presented.” Bechtel, 722 P.2d at 240. As with Rule 24(a), Rule 24(b) should
similarly be liberally construed. Dowling, 221 Ariz. at 272 ¶ 67 (citing Bechtel v. Rose,
150 Ariz. 68, 72 (1986)). Ultimately, whether a party may intervene under Rule 24(b) is
left to the adjudicating court’s decision. See id. at ¶ 16 (concluding trial court did not abuse
its discretion in performing Rule 24(b) analysis).
Here, each factor weighs in favor of permitting ADP’s permissive intervention. Cf.
Ariz. Democratic Party v. Hobbs, No. 2:20-cv-01143-DLR, ECF No. 60 (D. Ariz. June 26,
2020) (granting permissive intervention to political party entities). First, ADP has a distinct
interest in the constitutional and lawful administration of this election without interference
from Plaintiffs during the processing of ballots. Second, ADP will oppose the issue at the
very heart of this case: whether the requested remedy will create confusion and undermine
the confidence in the validity of the 2020 general election. Third, ADP’s interest is distinct
from other parties, as only ADP can represent both its organizational interests and the
interests of individual voters, including ADP’s members and constituents, whose ballots
may be not counted as a result of Plaintiffs’ requested remedy. Fourth, ADP seeks
intervention promptly—on the first business day after the Complaint was filed—and thus
its intervention will not delay the proceedings. Lastly, ADP will contribute to full factual
development of this case, because it can present evidence regarding voters whose right to
vote and have their votes counted would be threatened as a result of Plaintiffs’ request to
cease tabulation. Because Rule 24 should be “liberally construed” to protect the rights of
all parties, id., the Court should permit intervention in this case.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, ADP requests that the Court grant its Motion to Intervene.
DATED: November 9, 2020
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Chump can lie with one, but voters cannot use them? 
Short on facts, long on hearsay, suspicion and surmise. Lotsa unnamed pollworkers mentioned; where I vote, they wear name tags. Yet none of these affiants, even the pollwatcher, could (or was willing, subject to perjury) to name names.
Not to stir things up, but I bet ‘Statecraft PLLC’ has a website, with bios, headshots, practice areas, accomplishments, representative clients and contact info (individual email or a firm-wide inbox) for the lawyers shoveling this excrement. Nimbler noodles than mine might know how to share a great many well-wishing emails with them, or even their clients. Also, state bar associations maintain disciplinary records, some of them public.
Also, as registered voters, the affiants’ addresses are available public information in the county of registration (Maricopa, I think?). I bet they are also active on social media. Wonder what a little bit of research would turn up? Faster fingers than mine might learn a juicy thing or two. Many Trumpists wave their freak flags high, and are not bashful about sharing their pride with the world. Can’t help but wonder what dross and conspiracy theory, QAnon blather one might find. You could even check ‘em out on mugshots dot com, I hear.
Just sayin’...